roam_rename_page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the rename action and identification method, but omits critical details like side effects (e.g., cascading renames), required permissions, graph selection, or write key requirements. The behavioral impact is underdescribed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core action without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and identification method, achieving high efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (including graph and write_key) and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the graph/write_key parameters, return behavior, or confirmations. A user would need to infer from the schema alone, which is insufficient for confident use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are already comprehensive. The description adds marginal value by restating the identification via title or UID, but does not clarify relationships between parameters or usage nuances beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (rename a page) and the resource (a page identified by title or UID). It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like roam_create_page or roam_move_block, which could also involve page titles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use this instead of roam_create_page or roam_update_page_markdown. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.